About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
for example in egypt the brotherhood may be very reluctant on certain aspects of the security sector they're dealing with the military privileges of the military but other areas, for example, police, basic police reform and abuses and behavior of police i think my question and the brotherhood would be happy to see this corrected and improved, but that there is a perception within the brotherhood by many in the egyptian government institutions that if you were to address these issues it would result in its short term increase in crime and stability and they feel as though they can either fight crime effectively where they could address these kind of concerns which would be useful in the long term but detrimental in the short term and they would pay a heavy political price for the increase in crime on the basic security that would come with this reform. if you talk a little bit about that and also in tunisia i was there a couple of weeks ago, and one of the topics that came up quite a bit was the attacks on the u.s. embassy and while those of us here that might obviously highlight the need
identities. the fact that in egypt, the first thing they say is raise your head, you are an ejection, meaning be proud. so the question then is what happened? if this was true for a decade. there was nothing particularly unique about 2007 or 2011. whether there was a major economic crisis in egypt or tunisia. it was extraordinary and i don't think you can just blame it on economics. so the question is why didn't they do it before? i think we have the right answer. political sponsors have always assumed that it is not enough to have angry people to revolt. you have to organize and you have to get a lot of people through the streets and the government has to feel the heat. the fact you have a lot of angry people doesn't quite make it. governments understood that you can can't get people to the streets about organizing. the outline political parties. they kept tabs on social institutions. they put leaders in prison that challenge them. and they were under control. that is why some people are with us for the long haul. what happened over the last couple of years, we have been watching for a decad
and citizenship. peoples of egypt india algeria clearly did not fit the progressives view of the educated elite and by their definition they were close to quote life unworthy of life unquote. but these trends would marinate for a decade. in the meantime american prosperity continued spreading to the rest of the civilized world. american advertisers found and even literature became highly desired in europe. it's another irony at this time, american movies call it a production code that emphasized universal american themes of patriotism, god, fair play and they avoided sensationalism and other things. american movie sold american exceptionalism, including quote puritanical moralism as one observer put it. they occasionally made fun of those values to the work of people such as buster keaton and charlie chaplin but this was all done tongue-in-cheek and never meant to totally undermined the system itself. by 1930, the u.s. had 18,000 movie houses and compared to frances 2400 britain's 3000. europe simply get.compete with hollywood and as long as hollywood sold american exceptionalism, europeans wan
of egypt, india, algeria and africa clearly did not forget the progressives' view of educated elites and by their definitions were close to, quote, unworthy of life, unquote. but these trends would marinate for a decade. in the meantime, american prosperity continued spreading to the rest of the civilized world. american advertisers, film, even literature became highly desired in europe. it's another irony at this time, american movies followed a production code that emphasized universal american themes of patriotism. god, fair play, and they avoided sensationalism, sexual situations and other taboo vices. american movies sold american sensualism including, quote, puritanical mormonism, as one put it. they occasionally made fun of those values through the work of buster keaton and charlie chaplin, but this was never meant to totally undermine the system itself. by 1930 the u.s. had 18,000 movie houses and compared to france's 2400 and britain's 3,000. europe simply could not compete with hollywood, and as long as hollywood sold american exceptionalism, europeans wanted to be like mik
and citizenship. peoples of egypt, india, algeria and africa clearly did not fit the presidency of educated elites and by their definition close to life unworthy of life, unquote. but these transfer marinade for a decade. in the meantime, american prosperity continues spreading to the rest of the civilized world. american advertisers come the film in the literature became highly desired in europe. it's another irony at this time. american movie saudi production emphasizes universal american team, sexualization, other top devices. american movie sold american exceptionalism, including puritanical moralist and as one observer put it. they occasionally need people such as keaton and charlie chaplin. is it is all done tongue-in-cheek to undermine the system itself. in 1832 u.s. at 18,000 movie houses and compared to francis, 2400 britain's 3000. europe simply could not compete with hollywood and american exceptionalism from the europeans want to be like mike. inflation, communist, agitation, ethnic unrest in the slow contradictions of versailles and cause the postwar european structure to crumble into
into the arab spring. in egypt last year, when they can shut down the internet, shutdown global service, many asked how are they able to do that. what does it mean they can do that? is a very important question. but let me focus on another important question that fewer people asked. how did egypt come to have an internet and the mobile service worth shutting down? the short answer lies in the most important policy a congressman of the clinton administration that most people, present company excluded, have never heard of. world trade organization agreement on basic telecommunications. back in the 1990s, monopolies operated communications networks in most countries around the world, generally government owned or controlled monopoly. that was the world most of us grew up in. it was before the internet and mobile communications took off, and it's not a coincidence that the end of that world coincided with a takeoff of mobile and internet. in any event, back then in the '90s, leaders at the white house, as stated above, commerce department, and yes the fcc, develop what many thought at the time wa
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6